GOP's problems exposed in Senate

In 2010, when Republicans stumbled on what had been a clear path to winning control of the Senate, GOP operatives comforted themselves with a defiant vow: Just wait ’til next time.

Now, next time is here — and the GOP is in danger of blowing its shot at a majority for the second cycle in a row.

Story Continued Below

Republicans fell short of power in 2010 largely because three out-of-the-mainstream candidates — in Nevada, Delaware and Colorado — lost states that clearly were winnable if more electable politicians had been on the ballot.

In 2012, the early exuberance about GOP prospects was based largely on simple math: Democrats were defending 23 seats, some of which looked clearly vulnerable, while Republicans were defending only 10 seats.

But less than three weeks before voting, few people in Republican circles are feeling exuberant. Insiders in both parties put the chances of a GOP Senate takeover at less than 50-50. Assuming the current leader in polls in every Senate race hold — and a couple key races are literally tied — Democrats would still retain a very slim majority.

The slide in Republican expectations — from optimism at the start to public second-guessing and private recriminations at the finish line — are due to more than bad luck and a couple of underperforming candidates, although both of those played an important role.

The GOP’s Senate challenges more broadly are a reflection of a party that simply cannot be controlled from Washington down — but also can’t reliably produce good candidates and winning strategies from the grass roots up.

The Senate takeover struggle of 2012 has revealed a central leadership that is unwilling, and perhaps unable, to control its base — enfeebled by fear of tea party activists, conservative talk show hosts and big-money outsiders who can swing primary races.

Make no mistake — there will be a batch of conservative senators crowned on Nov. 6, and some GOP candidates struggling in red states against strong Democrats might well pull through. But there are also likely to be several more missed opportunities.

“We ought to be in better shape,” conceded Scott Bensing, who served as executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006 under former Sen. John Ensign.

Yes, party leaders suffered a pair of bad breaks that no one saw coming — Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe’s abrupt retirement in late February and Missouri Rep. Todd Akin’s explosive remark on “legitimate rape.”

But in several of the races — like Arizona, Wisconsin and Missouri — the party’s hands-off approach to primaries produced battered, weakened candidates who are struggling to pull away in races many Republicans thought were sure bets.

What follows is a POLITICO report, based on more than a dozen interviews with senators, candidates and operatives on the main reasons Republicans are struggling in the battle for Senate control:

THE CHARLIE CRIST EFFECT

There’s a legion of reasons why Republican fortunes are darker than most objective analysts projected, but the overarching explanation is that its leaders can’t control their base.

No person or group in the Republican Party has the power to prop up or push out candidates. So primary winners often enter the general election battered and cash-poor. That kind of internecine warfare is rare on the Democratic side.